Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)

From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Auto Vacuum Daemon (again...)
Date: 2002-11-29 04:26:19
Message-ID: 3DE739C3.28840.467D16F@localhost (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 28 Nov 2002 at 10:45, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> > interesting thought.  I think this boils down to how many knobs do we
> > need to put on this system. It might make sense to say allow upto X
> > concurrent vacuums, a 4 processor system might handle 4 concurrent
> > vacuums very well.
> 
> This is almost certainly a bad idea.  vacuum is not very
> processor-intensive, but it is disk-intensive.  Multiple vacuums running
> at once will suck more disk bandwidth than is appropriate for a
> "background" operation, no matter how sexy your CPU is.  I can't see
> any reason to allow more than one auto-scheduled vacuum at a time.

Hmm.. We would need to take care of that as well.. 

Bye
 Shridhar

--
In most countries selling harmful things like drugs is punishable.Then howcome 
people can sell Microsoft software and go unpunished?(By hasku(at)rost(dot)abo(dot)fi, 
Hasse Skrifvars)


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-11-29 05:53:26
Subject: Re: nested transactions
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-11-29 03:27:32
Subject: Re: nested transactions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group